The Journal of Science Policy
& Governance
OP-ED:
CONSIDERATIONS ON U.S.
GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN
STEM EDUCATION AND EARLY
CHILDHOOD INTERVENTIONS
BY
George Romar and Dr. Kirstin Matthews
Rice University
If the federal government is expected to act in the national public interest, safeguarding the
continued development of the country’s home-grown science and technology (S&T) should be a
top priority. Such development has been central to the prosperity of America’s market-oriented
economy and has contributed to an elevated standard of living (Galama & Hosek, 2007).
Through adequate education it also has the potential to increase the scientific literacy of the
electorate, which is crucial in the formation of reliably informed public opinion on
science-related policy issues such as funding for stem cell research, strategies for environmental
conservation, and reforms for public education. Enhancement of American science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) education at all levels, even early childhood, is therefore a
justifiable federal priority.
It is no secret that America’s S&T establishment is one of the best developed in the world.
Despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States accounts for 31
percent of the world’s research and development (R&D) spending, 23 percent of the world’s
researchers, and 26 percent of all science and engineering (S&E) articles. Moreover, according to
the Academic Ranking of World Universities, 17 of the world’s top 20 universities are located in
the United States (Academic Ranking, 2012). Such recognition for the quality of American
higher education institutions (which also have the greatest pull on STEM students) has
contributed to the country’s leading status as the top destination of choice for international
students – a group which has contributed substantially to America’s STEM enterprise (Stephan
& Levin, 2001).
However, U.S. global leadership in S&T over the past five decades is not guaranteed in
produce the number of qualified STEM professionals that is necessary to fill the domestic labor
force demand. This presents a major challenge for the nation’s public primary and secondary
education system, which has often been publicly criticized for its weaknesses related to STEM
education. For example, despite living in the country with the most respected higher education
establishment in the world, 15-year-olds in the United States consistently score below their peers
in many other developed countries on the Program for International Student Assessment – a
literacy assessment that evaluates mathematics and science knowledge (Science and Engineering
Indicators, 2012). If effective ways of correcting these shortcomings are not discovered and
policies addressing these shortcomings are not implemented, the country may find itself deficient
in STEM professionals in the domestic labor force. In fact, the emergence of such a domestic
labor shortage has already become part of national and local immigration debates as advocates
for reform call for increased admission of skilled labor (Immigration Policy Center, 2013).
The American economy is projected to steadily increase the number of the STEM jobs
between 2008 and 2018 that require university graduates with appropriate skills and expertise
(Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). However, the current output of college graduates in STEM
fields (~300,000 annually) is insufficient to meet the demand (exceeding 400,000 annually). As a
result, over the next decade the President’s Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) has
reported the need for producing at least 1 million more STEM graduates than the current
graduation rates (Report to the President, 2012).
Technology companies frequently express concerns about this shortage of STEM
professionals. Inadequate supply in the United States may lead companies to relocate or call for
Microsoft Corporation stated that although in the past it has invested 83 percent of its
multi-billion dollar R&D budget in the United States, the STEM workforce shortage may force it and
other technology companies to send the unfilled jobs to countries that do produce enough STEM
graduates (Microsoft National Talent Strategy, 2012). Although Microsoft’s assessment of the
gravity of the shortage is contended by some (Costa, 2012), it remains that the projected growth
and demand of STEM jobs outpaces the supply of American STEM graduates.
Congress and President Obama have attempted to address STEM education shortfalls by
enacting and reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act (2010). In particular, the Act has
provided targeted funding for education initiatives supported by the National Science Foundation
(NSF). PCAST’s 2012 Executive Report to President Obama included a number of
recommendations for NSF programs at the post-secondary education level that it believes will
help produce an additional 1 million STEM graduates (Report to the President, 2012).
Although addressing the STEM shortage at the post-secondary level is important, the
NSF also wisely recognizes that the strongest foundation for generating a capable STEM
workforce must be laid much earlier. Hence, the NSF has sponsored a number of K-12 STEM
education projects through its Discovery Research K-12 program (Discovery Research, n.d.).
The foundation also has a program that sponsors STEM graduate students at universities around
the country to partner with local K-12 schools with the explicit aim to “stimulate interest in
science and engineering among students and teachers” (About NSF GK-12, n.d.). These
initiatives are solid steps in the right direction, but the program’s relatively small scale limits
their national impact. The NSF’s 179 graduate student teaching fellowships have no hope of
STEM partnership between the government and the nation’s 6,742 colleges and universities is
needed.
Priority should be placed on early childhood education research. Given enough
well-trained teachers, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that early
childhood interventions as simple as providing smaller class sizes can yield measurable benefits
in adulthood (Dynarski, Hyman, & Schanzenbach, 2011). Smaller classes were shown to
increase young children’s prospects of earning a college degree by 1.6 percentage points and
made them more inclined to pursue STEM fields. Researchers at MIT have recommended that
taxpayers provide early education for every interested family because each dollar invested
returns as much as $13 in costs for public education, criminal justice, and welfare over the next
few decades, plus increased tax revenue in the long term (Calman & Tarr-Whelan, 2005). These
findings, among others (Reynolds et al., 2001; Heckman, 2007; Barnett, 2007), point to the
notable benefits that result from early childhood interventions. This evidence is crucial for
federal STEM education policy formulations aimed at sustaining the nation’s STEM activities
References
About NSF Graduate STEM fellows in K-12 Education. (2013). < http://www.gk12.org/about/>
Academic Ranking of World Universities - 2012. Rep. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, n.d.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. 111 Cong., 2nd sess. Cong H.R. 5116. National Science Foundation, n.d.
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the abecedarian program and policy
implications. Economics of Education Review, 26, 113-125.
Calman, L. J., & Tarr-Whelan, L. (2005, 04). Early childhood education for all: A wise investment. The economic impacts of child care and early education.
Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018. Rep. Center on Education and the Workforce - Georgetown University, 15 June 2010.
Costa, Daniel. STEM Labor Shortages? Microsoft Report Distorts Reality about Computing Occupations. Rep. Economic Policy Institute, 19 Nov. 2012.
Discovery Research K-12 (DRK-12). Issue brief. National Science Foundation, n.d. Web.
Heckman, J. J., Schultz, H. B., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. Oxford University Press., 29(3), 446-493.
National Center for Education Sciences, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). Digest of education statistics: 2011. Alexanndria, VA: U.S. Department of Education.
Dynarski, Susan, Joshua M. Hyman, and Diane W. Schanzenbach. Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Childhood Investments on Postsecondary Attainment and Degree Completion. Working paper no. 17533. National Bureau of Economic Research, Oct. 2011.
Galama, T., Hosek, J. (2007). Perspectives on U.S. Competitiveness in Science and
Technology. RAND National Defense Institute. Prepared for the Office of the Sec. of Defense.
Immigration Policy Center. (2013). Rebuilding local economies. American Immigration Council.
Microsoft National Talent Strategy. Rep. Microsoft Corporation, Sept. 2012.
Report to the President - Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Rep. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Feb. 2012.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(18), 2339-2346.
Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 Arlington, VA (NSB 12-01). Jan. 2012.
